Just trying to get a handle on people's expectations around named graphs as
g-snaps vs. g-boxes as it relates to graph equality (and inequality).
Given the two notional TriG/Qurtle fragments which we would like to combine:
file-1.trig:
:G1 { :a :b :c } .
:G2 { :d :e :f } .
file-2.trig:
:G1 { :a :b :d } .
:G3 { :d :e :f } .
My impression so far is that some people want to treat named graphs as
g-snaps, and some as g-boxes. Suppose for a second that we treat them as
naming g-snaps. Without expressing an opinion one way or another, I ask:
1. Is the fact that G1 is mapped to two different g-snaps an inconsistency?
2. From the fact that G2 and G3 are mapped to the same g-snap, can we
conclude that G2 and G3 are in fact the same resource?
Regards,
Alex